I'll tell you the real reason why you see the same brands everywhere; big companies buy startups with good ideas. Is that a failure for the startup? No, not at all.

Wouldn't that mean just less competition consequently ? You buying up your potential competitors it only means less competition in the end ... 

You only furthered my point that patents serve to keep monopolies alive ... 

Big companies buying small startups is not a failure entirely but the winner is still the big companies in the end but for other startups that did not face similar cases are casted into oblivion ... 

Just more reasons why a patent system shouldn't exist ... 

Innovation lost?  Man, how did we ever come from room sized computers in the 50's to pocket sized ones just 55-60 years later.  Damn those patents.  Innovation has barely happened since we put them into place.  Oh wait, they actually helped excellerate it.  Why?  Because people can make money off of their own inventions, making them worthwhile to invest in in the first place.  Otherwise people wouldn't want to innovate, cause other companies could just rip them off and they see nothing from it.  And it doesn't cost billions to aquire a patent.  It may cost millions to buy out a smaller company who owns the patent, but to get the initial patent is not billions. 

And I already said we need to deal with trolls, so don't ignore that.  Of course, you would have MUCH worse than trolls if we got rid of the patent system.  You would have straight up thieves.  Now, we have bigger companies having to at least buy out smaller ones for millions to aquire their tech, which actually pays the ones who came up with the invention/innovation.  Without patents, ANYONE would be able to steal others' ideas.  This means big companies would just take smaller companies ideas, meaning they get nothing.  Your world just benefits larger companies, while killing smaller ones.

Being aquired by a larger company is a choice. Being destroyed by a larger company in a "fair" fight because they have access to the exact tech you invented isn't a choice. Go ask any start-up (That has anything to do with patents) if they'd prefer to have the option of selling the company to a bigger company, or don't sell it and continue to expand your business all by yourself, OR if they'd want to give all that research to the larger company for free, so that they don't even have to buy the company to get the tech, cause they get it for free.

Thankfully, a patentless future won't happen, so I won't bother to discuss this any further.

You may get innovation from the monopolies but not those from other industries trying to pitch in so that right there is lost innovation ...

If anything it's the market that accelerates innovation. You have to impress the customers with your products and services, not your portfolio of ideas ...

Companies taking ideas from each other is normal, what's not normal is giving big corporations an advantage ... 

One patent alone can't cost an upwards of a billion but once you start actively seeking out tons of reccommended and necessary patents in order to create a competitive product in a specific industry with tons of revenue then the costs can start spiralling up and it could cost more than a billion dollars! ALL that money and time wasted just to get on equal footing when you could've just spent it in R&D instead and innovated even more ... 

I didn't ignore the patent trolls if anything abolishing a patent system would ultimately put an end to it ...

There is no such thing as trolls in business, you do whatever you can to get an advantage and it's ALWAYS been like that. It's like what Picasso says and what Steve Jobs says too, "good artists copy but great artists steal". How else could've Apple as a business succeed ? They simply STEAL ... 

The inventor may get money but you still end up with a monopoly so that contradicts your notion that a patentless system is helping/killing bigger/smaller company respectively. When you end up buying every small company out there you only get monpolies and next to no small companies anymore ... 

A patentless world would mean big corporations getting the short end of the stick. Free R&D from big companies, keeping big companies on their toes, small companies been able to put out competitve products or services, more easily able to enter an industry, and it's harder to bankrupt small companies in general. Under a patentless system the only ones that have odds stacked against them are big companies or leeches plus it's not a big loss to small businesses not been able to practice an exclusive idea anymore when they can get better ones from whatever the big ones are cooking up ...

If your only goal was to be acquired by a bigger business why not just apply for employment over there instead ? 

Who's to say that a patent free future won't happen ? 

Who the hell said it was the only goal? It is an option. If you think your business will do better under a bigger company (and if the sum is big enough...) you'd sell, but if you wanted to remain in control of your business, so as to grow and become a major player yourself, you don't sell.

Haha, I'm to say. Patent free future won't happen, at least not as long as I live, and thank god for that.

BTW, at your "How else could Apple succeed as a business? They STEAL!", well no, not really. They innovate. If everyone could use Apple's ideas, they wouldn't have succeeded as a business. You know what other companies wouldn't have succeeded without patents? Intel, AMD, Micron Technology, Sony, Samsung, Microsoft, Tesla etc. The list goes on and on. Patents are crucial for small companies to succeed, because if big companies could use their ideas however they pleased, they would never get big.

You may get one less option and I'm not arguing that but at least you can put out a competitive product without the resctriction of patents. I'm mainly arguing that if companies were not bounded by patents they can be more competitive and that much is obvious. Besides there are reasons other than acquiring a business for it's patents such as having good employees ...

Was Apple the first one with a digital portable media player ? No ...

Was Apple the first one with a smartphone ? No obviously ...

Was Apple the first with the tablet ? Nope, well you get the idea ...

Innovation ALONE is hardly the key to success when there's lots of examples out there where the original inventors not capitalizing on the market ...

Ironically enough patents will probably push AMD in a less competitive position plus they only got lucky due to IBM requiring a second manufacturer ...

Patents can also stifle small companies when they are en mass thrust to be drove out of the market by larger entities ...

Patents aren't the ONLY thing for a small business to become a big shot company and it's not like they can't get a competitive advantage too when all that R&D is free. It might even make it harder for bigger companies to hold a monopoly all things accounted for ... 

Dang,people can't even properly celebrate what Nintendo does win. Nintendo doesn't need money like people think. Get a clue before you post, pessimistic posters. Anyway, can't believe the case includes GBA.

Now Nintendo should counter, and bury these cockroaches!